1/15
While Adam Posen correctly recognizes the problems the Chinese economy currently faces, his explanation of what has gone wrong, and what Beijing must do to revive the economy is, in my opinion, completely off the mark.
2/15
He argues that China's economic troubles are the result of Xi Jinping's turning against the private sector, especially in response to COVID. This is simply not true. The problems facing the Chinese economy were obvious to some of us over a decade ago.
3/15
They are the same problems that every country that has followed a similar growth model has faced. China implemented a high savings, high-investment model that was extremely successful when the economy was severely underinvested for its level of institutional development.
4/15
But once China closed the gap between the investment it had and the investment it could productively absorb, given its particular set of business, legal, financial and political institutions, like every historical precedent, instead of switching to a different...
5/15
model, it continued with the same model of high savings and now-excessive investment, which led – as in every one of the precedents cases – to asset bubbles, especially in real estate, and an ultimately unsustainable rise in debt.
6/15
As this happened, the locus of economic activity automatically shifted from hard budget-constrained sectors to soft budget-constrained sectors. The turn against the private sector, in other words, was a consequence of China's rising imbalances, and not the cause.
7/15
For certain economists, any rapid growth is by definition a consequence of private sector initiative, while any slowdown, also by definition, is a consequence of government intervention. But this is not at all what happened in China.
8/15
China's ferocious growth in the first three decades of reform was the result of heavy government intervention. This included policies that forced up the savings rate and corralled the resulting savings into a highly controlled banking system that was designed...
9/15
to flood the investment and manufacturing sectors of economy with cheap financing. It also included heavy currency intervention, tough labor restrictions, and a whole series of direct and indirect subsidies to the manufacturing sector that led to explosive growth in ...
10/15
infrastructure and made Chinese manufacturers the most competitive in the world, albeit at the expense of Chinese households. To say that three decades of some of the most spectacular growth in history came simply from "unshackling" the private sector makes no sense at all.
11/15
When Posen says "The condition is systemic, and the only reliable cure—credibly assuring ordinary Chinese people and companies that there are limits on the government’s intrusion into economic life – cannot be delivered," this makes little sense.
12/15
What perhaps should've been obvious a decade ago has now become obvious to most economists in China: China's biggest problem isn't "government intrusion" (although that certainly doesn't help). It is the distortion in the distribution of income that keeps domestic demand...
13/15
too weak to support domestic business investment. Without resolving weak domestic demand, it is all but impossible for China to maintain high levels of economic activity except by maintaining the high levels of non-productive investment that have caused the very malaise...
14/15
it is supposed to cure. Business investment is weak, in other words, not because of government intrusion but because of weak demand. Government intrusion is the consequence of weak business investment. The way to fix the economy is to fix the demand side of the economy.
15/15
I wrote an essay in 2012 which explains why the problems now facing the Chinese economy were inevitable, long before, the COVID-related "intrusions" happened. It was published by Carnegie two years later.
1/14
Interesting IMF Working Paper on the evolution in China's fiscal policy and its impact on government debt and balance sheets. It has great information, especially historical data, on central- and local-government debt and financial assets.
2/14
Where I disagree with the authors (perhaps not surprisingly, regular readers will say) is in their recommendation on how to get China's burgeoning debt under control. I would argue that they are confusing the locus of debt creation with the source of rising debt.
3/14
In their conclusion they say: "Our findings suggests that the Achilles heel for China lies with local governments and SOEs, underscoring the urgency of a comprehensive restructuring agenda and institutional fiscal reforms."
1/5 For those who think that China's rapid development in the 1990s and 2000s was driven mainly by the unleashing of the private sector, and not by active government intervention, here is what Wu Jinglian has to say in this piece on Ryutaro Komiya:
2/5 "Selective industrial policy became the centerpiece of China’s state economic policy regime and the main means of government intervention in the micro-economy under the so-called 'combination of planning and market' system."
3/5 "This practice carried on until the end of the 20th century. As a result, to this day, how to promote the transformation of industrial policy remains one of the more pressing issues that China’s economy needs to address."
1/6 When Beijing seems determined to force up the stock market, investors usually see that as a signal to buy, and their decisions become self-reinforcing as purchases can cause markets to shoot up. We saw this most dramatically in 2007 and 2015.
2/6 According to Bloomberg, "The rare pledge to 'invigorate capital markets and boost investor confidence' at the July Politburo meeting — the strongest endorsement of markets by top leaders in at least a decade — is driving bets that Beijing will take steps to...
3/6 increase trading activity in the coming months. Changes being anticipated range from lower taxes and quicker settlement to measures aimed at boosting secondary-market liquidity and foreign investment."
1/7 This could be risky for China: "Argentina has struck a deal with China’s central bank to settle more than half of its $2.7 billion debt due this week to the IMF in yuan by tapping a currency swap line, its economy minister said on Monday."
2/7 "The balance was covered by a $1 billion bridge loan from the Development Bank of Latin America. This means Argentina didn’t have to draw 'a single dollar' from its own reserves to pay the maturing debt, Sergio Tomás Massa said during a speech."
3/7 It seems Buenos Aires is using a PBoC swap facility to borrow RMB to preserve dollar reserves. What does Beijing get out of it? "Argentina has been building closer economic and financial ties with China for years and is turning to the yuan amid a severe outflow of reserves."
1/8 Good piece on the slowdown this year in the Chinese economy. It argues that unless Beijing is more aggressive with fiscal stimulus, it risks seeing GDP growth underperform the 5% target.
2/8 While I suspect that Beijing will probably soon announce stronger fiscal measures to boost growth, and that this will allow China to meet and exceed the 5% target, I don't think this is a good thing for China except in the very short term.
3/8 Over the medium term this will just make the underlying imbalances worse and put more downward pressure on growth. Beijing's real focus should be on resolving its domestic demand imbalances, not on reviving the growth model that...
2/5 China-based manufacturers are incredibly competitive not because they are especially efficient or enjoy domestic comparative advantages, but rather because of the huge amount of direct and indirect subsidies and government support they receive.
3/5 This combination of low labor costs, local-government overspending on logistical and transportation infrastructure, cheap and easily available credit, an undervalued currency, etc., are simply the obverse of China's incredibly low household share of GDP.